We take transparency and openness very seriously, and that's one of the reasons we have a report that Ireland considered as the best model to go with and that pushes the limits of transparency and accountability. That's why we try every year to improve that report in terms of the information it provides to Canadians, not only to educate them about the institutions, but also to provide as much understanding as we can of what's actually happening within the institutions.
This is a process that's ongoing, independent of any legislative review; that is, we want to try to improve our reporting each and every year, and if there are better models for how to do that, we'll try to do that.
With respect to some of the provisions that are put forward, for example, the broad definition of development assistance, married with a limitation that anything within it that isn't poverty reduction arguably can't be done--I hadn't seen that language in previous versions. And that's the language that caused our counsel to raise red flags.
Again, I'm not suggesting that this was the intent of the committee, but I don't think we want to be in a position, if the legislation ultimately succeeds, where an intervenor is allowed to take the government to court and stop funding in a whole range of activities--not just stopping the funding from being called development assistance, but actually stopping the funding, the ODA, on the grounds that we've done that. And that's, to my understanding, a new development.